For shame.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 April 3rd, 1995
For shame.
The Budget March 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, actually, I agree with what the hon. member was saying when he described the following rather gloomy prospects for the Canadian economy: "We are headed for an economic collapse, and we are going down the steep and narrow path to national bankruptcy".
National bankruptcy is what we see looming as a result of the budget that was brought down this year. This is one of the reasons, just one but a major one, why Quebec would like to separate from Canada. Canada's budgetary and financial affairs are a mess and are leading straight down the road to disaster, to bankruptcy. This is more or less what was said by financial advisers on Wall Street.
Personally, I do not want to see the poor and the elderly in Quebec in a position where they cannot count on the support of social programs, as the hon. member pointed out. This Budget is terribly unfair to people who depend on social programs.
This Budget will cut $100 million annually in funding for social housing alone, a program that is targeted to the poorest members of our society. Single parent families, women, the elderly, people who live alone, welfare recipients: they all belong to the poorest social group in our society. This group will be affected by cuts of $100 million annually, while the banks get off scot-free or almost, with very few cuts, in fact $100 million over two years, the same Canadian banks that last year made a net profit of $4.3 billion. These cuts represent not quite 2 per cent of their net profits.
I may also add that family trusts will not pay a cent.
In concluding, I want to say that I fully sympathize with what the hon. member said, and I would like to ask him the following: If he were in Quebec, would he not agree that the best solution, at least for Quebecers, is sovereignty?
The Budget March 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we learned from the budget that allocations to Canada Mortgage and Housing will be cut by almost $215 million in 1995-96. More than half this amount, over $105 million, was earmarked for public housing.
My question is for the acting prime minister. Would he not agree that, by cutting public housing subsidies this way, the government is directly attacking the basic needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, contrary to the promises made in the red book?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in listening to my hon. friend I do not know whether he is going forward or backward. He does give me the impression that he is definitely going backward.
Unfortunately there are some things I have to agree with. He does speak to the fact that this government has not really been firm enough in reducing the deficit which is already astronomical. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that the longer we delay in resolving the issue, the more pressure we are putting on future generations.
It is the youth of this country who will have to pay. We are being nice to ourselves by not really being more firm but that is where I do not agree with this hon. member. I do not share his lack of feeling and lack of compassion toward people who are getting the screw when there is latitude to demand for example that the banks contribute a bit more.
Would my hon. friend agree with me that it is unfair to ask that banks in Canada contribute $100 million over the next couple of years when we know they have been making incredible profits over the past few years? The Royal Bank last year made $1.2 billion net profit. We are asking these banks to contribute only $100 million and we are cutting and slashing social programs. Does he think that is fair?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as my hon. colleague sang the praises of the latest budget, saying that this may be the opportunity we were looking for to act aggressively to put our fiscal house in order. But would he agree with me that this budget did not come down very hard on the banks and family trusts?
All banks are asked to pay over the next two years is about $100 million. This is really not very much when you think that banks are the businesses that have turned the largest profits over the past five to ten years. Last year alone, the Royal Bank's net profit was $1.2 billion. And this is just one bank.
In addition, by deferring changes regarding family trusts to 1999, or five years down the road, the wealthiest segment of our society will have ample time to find another place where to put their money away to avoid any form of taxation. Considering that the government could have brought in perhaps as much as $1 billion from these trusts alone, does the hon. member really think that his government took firm and fair action?
Questions On The Order Paper February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Question No. 93, which I tabled in this House on October 19. There are two parts to this question. Not only did it take three months to get a response, but, when I finally got it, last Friday, it was only half an answer. I am still awaiting the other half.
What I got was a short paragraph of two lines telling me to go and find it myself. The response was: "Look it up yourself". I went, in fact, to see for myself. What is in the library is a sort of dog's breakfast. Moreover, it is not even up to date. My question concerned federal government properties in Quebec in 1994, and the information I had to look for dated back a number of years.
I wonder how such flagrant disregard for the rules of this House is tolerated. How is it such long delays are permitted? How is it possible to provide incomplete answers and abuse members' privileges? Is this the result of budget cuts or is this another attempt to deny us access to information? Is silence the watchword?
I want information and I cannot get it.
Questions On The Order Paper February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have a serious problem. I also placed a question on the Order Paper on October 19, 130 days ago. This question had two parts: a) and b). Finally, last Friday, after a little more than a hundred days, I received an answer to the first half of my question. You can see my problem.
I wonder if there is any hope of getting the second part of my question answered. I find this somewhat unfortunate because, frankly, the information requested in that part is simpler, shorter, yet more important to me. Can I appeal to someone to ask for some justice and get this answer?
Would the hon. member be so kind as to answer the question regarding federal government properties in Quebec?
Social Housing February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would have expected a better answer from the minister who has nevertheless found $600,000 to build a brick wall in his honour in his riding.
Are we to understand that, by virtue of this measure which serves to increase requirements made of individuals in social housing, the federal government would once again download the burden of its deficit onto the backs of the most destitute and that the 110,000 affected households in Quebec can expect nothing further from this federal government?
Social Housing February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Quebec minister of municipal affairs and housing rejected the federal government's proposal to increase the amount individuals must pay for social housing from 25 to 30 per cent of their income.
My question is for the minister of public works. Since the Quebec government has decided not to increase the amount to be paid for social housing, can the minister tell us whether he
intends to reverse his position and maintain at the current level the amount to be paid for social housing?
Firearms Act February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the legitimate use of firearms for those people who have good reason such as sportsmen and farmers, to use two examples. However I have questions about whether registration would do anything to help reduce criminality.
I have a hypothetical example. If the system worked perfectly, in other words there was a control system somewhere in Ottawa where all firearms would be listed in a little computer and we would have a complete list of all firearms everywhere in the country, does the member think those people who have illegal projects in mind might be able to get their hands on that list and determine that Joe Schmoe living on such and such a street has an awful good collection of firearms? It would incite a certain number of people to go to Joe Schmoe's house and steal all his firearms. It is a way of possibly encouraging the illegal use of firearms. Registering the firearms does not necessarily have an effect on criminality.
There is another flaw in this law. If we register firearms it will not prevent Joe Schmoe from shooting his neighbour on a Saturday night. It is not because his firearm is registered that he will not kill his neighbour. It being a registered firearm will not prevent his son or daughter from killing himself or herself. It does not prevent anything at all.
However, if the minister had been conscientious and had gone the limit, he would have demanded from the moment a firearm was sold in Canada that it had a control mechanism, in other words one needed a key to be able to use it. It can be done. Technically we can control the use of firearms in the sense that a key would be needed to open it and use it. As long as it is locked, whether it is sitting on the back seat of the car or in the living room, it could not be used as readily. One would need the key to use the firearm. At least that measure would limit the misuse of firearms.
Many other suggestions could be made, but I do not believe registering firearms would necessarily have an effect on the reduction of criminality in Canada in spite of the fact that I think this measure is a step in the right direction. Despite the fact that the Bloc will suggest improvements for the proposed law we will probably support it.